‘Saudi Arabia’s bitch’? Tulsi Gabbard has some strong words for President Trump

Which history?
Be specific.
And these corporations you speak of are not "Us".

 

After bitch slapping Kamala Harris during a debate Tulsi has learned how to get attention. Her "strong words" are just a way of trying to stay relevant during this election cycle.

 

She told Trump the same things before she declared herself as a candidate.

 

Tell it to believers, I’m not one.

 

Its why I posted it as a question first.

 

Moral nations and moral corporations (if there is such a thing) would recognize that the people of any given country have rights to their own natural resources, including water. I'm all for foreign oil companies doing business in other lands, but moral leadership would have a more fair distribution of profits to the rightful owners of such resources.

An example is the way state politicians have given away the water to private companies here in Florida. Nestle and other companies take all the water for an absurdly low price considering the profits they make. No taxes on all those profits. State of Florida citizens lose, the water companies win.

Moral leadership of most US corporations is non-existent.

 

LOLOLOL..

 

That was the original problem for the British in Iran in 1952-53. They were paying 7 cents on the dollar in oil revenues to Iran. ARAMCO was paying the Saudis 50% of oil revenues in 1951 and training up a Saudi workforce.. So you're correct.

 

People have no rights, individuals do--and no group of individuals has any rights greater that any specfic one member of that group.

This idea that because a bunch of ignorant roaming nomads used the desert as their outhouse they have a claim to that which they couldn't conceive of, let alone produce, is absurd. Take the oil back, annihilate every single Islamic tyranny in existence, as we did to Germany's religion, National Socialism and Japan's religion, National Shintoism.

It would be best if Man would regain his reason and start taking these garbage States out to landfills and bury them--and then start to build a future of liberty, reason, science, technology, achievement, and life happily ever after. Fk! We fly in space, and yet we still have the deluded bowing to the unprovable, in the name of the unbelievable, and whose tyrants are still imprisoning, torturing, and murdering those who just want to live.

In what moral, real, world does an honest soul allow such a depraved monstrosity as Islamic tyranny to exist? None. And I'm not about to start.

I want America to declare war on all Islamic tyrannies and obliterate them, just as we did Berlin and Toyoko. Yesterday is already too late, and today isn't early enough.

But it won't happen, the world will eventually fall into another Dark Ages ruled by mystics and brutes until one day, a mind will be born--a Thales of Miletus, or an Aristotle, or a Copernicus, or a Newton, or a Rand--and the world will be reborn. What a waste.​

Ayn Rand: "It is only by means of principles that one can set one’s long-range goals and evaluate the concrete alternatives of any given moment. It is only principles that enable a man to plan his future and to achieve it.

The present state of our culture may be gauged by the extent to which principles have vanished from public discussion, reducing our cultural atmosphere to the sordid, petty senselessness of a bickering family that haggles over trivial concretes, while betraying all its major values, selling out its future for some spurious advantage of the moment."--http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/principles.html

The Rise of Totalitarian Islam--Yaron Brook

 

You're ignoring the tyrants that run the SWIFT, built on the petrodollar, who you are now unkowingly shilling for.
Ayn would bitch slap you and set you straight for falling for such John Wayne-ish crap.

 

So you say. I disagree. And I am also ignoring the tyrants who run Venezuela and North Korea.

BTW: Are they still preaching the old Trilateral Commission nonsense, or is the "Petrodollar built SWIFT" something new the anti-capitalists have come up with.

Ayn Rand: "When men reduce their virtues to the approximate, then evil acquires the force of an absolute, when loyalty to an unyielding purpose is dropped by the virtuous, it’s picked up by scoundrels—and you get the indecent spectacle of a cringing, bargaining, traitorous good and a self-righteously uncompromising evil."--http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/compromise.html

 

Ebonics is now the professional language of choice for liberal politicians.

Now should it be Bitch or Beotch?

 

Israel can do its own fighting and dying. I wouldn't lift a finger to help them and any American who does is an idiot.

 

Apparantlly wouldn't know capitalism if it smacked you, and you cant sniff out the collectivism that controls the currency supply.
True price discovery of money is the cornerstone of free markets, which we haven't had in over 100 years.

That's ok, the boys in Basil will be glad to control you through the implementation of supranational tribunals and digital currency enforced by legal tender laws.

But keep chasing the boogeyman of their creation.

 

so you say, I disagree.

 

The same way that John Kerry wasn't brought up on charges under much worse circumstances.

Trump is waiting to see what transpires with the elections in Israel before he makes any significant decisions.

Gabbard's chances of gaining the Democrat Party nomination are beyond the pale.

So Trump is uninspired to direct any criticism towards her.

 

I agree with your general point that by logic rights must begin with the individual.

However I think you're misreading with the claim that groups don't have rights. True, the rights of a group cannot exceed the rights of any individual, but I must ask why the founding fathers began the experiment with We The People?

The First and Fourth Amendments, and other references in the document, make it clear that "the people" are real and that they too have rights.

Do the people of Florida have a collective right to the water provided by springs and aquifers? I think they do, and that principle must drive contracts regarding the use of such resources.

 

I agree with Tulsi. The cowardly sanctions are bad enough.

 

"We the people"--It's faulty thinking that has been used by scoundrels to eat away at the rights of the individual in the name of the common good. I'd prefer, "The free souls" or the "independent minds", or the "Individual's of America", unfortunately, philosophical thought hadn't advanced far enough to use the right phrasing.

The wording in amendments has the same foundational fault--though I doubt the founding fathers meant "people" as an aggregate collective and saw it more as "each and every individual". I also believe they saw some of these ideas and thoughts as axiomatic (self-evident) and frowned on redundancy--which is why property rights aren't mentioned in "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"--if you have no right to the property you obtain while living your life, how does one live? By permission?

Being part of collective grants you no rights above that of the individual. So, no, the citizens of Flordia have no rights to minerals--they belong to whomever morally obtains them, mines them, and brings them to market.

The principle is Individual Rights, and they can never be violated without giving birth to tyranny. As proof, today's attack on businesses and property owners by the State in the name of the favored gangs of the moment--Blacks, Hispanics, Workers, Homosexuals, Women, Muslims, Environmentalists, Ecologists, the Sustainable Development nuts, PETA, Feminists, and on, and on, and on, until its just gang warfare and the principle of individual rights is flushed down the sewer of political correctness.

Anyone who demands the right to sacrifice some to others always believes they are the "others" deserving of the sacrifce.

The Arab people have no right to that oil, no right to a nation that is based or religion or ethnicity, and have no right to demand others bow to the mystical delusion they call Allah.

Ayn Rand: "The notion of “collective rights” (the notion that rights belong to groups, not to individuals) means that “rights” belong to some men, but not to others—that some men have the “right” to dispose of others in any manner they please—and that the criterion of such privileged position consists of numerical superiority."--http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/collective_rights.html

 

Understanding Riparian Rights and their common law heritage, they pertain to surface water as it meanders along. Common Law heritage, and therefore some common sense to deal with the problem of ownership.

So how do we apply that to aquifers as we have in Florida and many other places.

As you've brought up morality, whoever morally obtains resources, how does morality derive from "purchasing" natural resources needed by all?

I'm all for private ownership, but I have trouble with assigning natural resources required by all mankind and other species by way of fiat.

Morality is very much involved here. If we the people don't own certain natural resources, WTF is this all about? Is any reference to We The People just sophistry and lip service?

 

Private ownership is an essential part of liberty but relies on equitable money, which we have not had in over 100 years. Our system of currency issuance has transferred hundreds of trillions to the financial industry, which produces no goods or services. Real money is produced through real production. Private ownership of natural resources is slowly being transferred to those who never produced real money and were enriched through government edict.

 

"My bones spurs are killing me, but if I 'm willing to make the sacrifice,
why can't America's kids risk their lives for brutal despots?"​